Dear David Brooks

A dear, very liberal friend shared a recent NYT opinion article by David Brooks, The Republican Fausts. This is my response to it: 

This paragraph in Brooks's opinion sums up my "Trump" thoughts nicely:

Trump exceeded expectations with his cabinet picks, but his first 10 days in office have made clear this is not a normal administration. It is a problem that demands a response. It is a callous, bumbling group that demands either personal loyalty or the ax.

Cabinet Picks

Many of his leadership posts, I think, have been meaningless/harmless (e.g. Carlson, Perry, Puzder, DeVos) while others I don't have enough good data to say one way or the other, yet (Mnuchin, Kelly, Chao).  But then there are the ones I think of as the grownups in the room, Mattis, Tillerson, Pompeo and possibly Hayley, especially Mattis, Tillerson and Pompeo.

Demands a Response

I keep waiting for the grownups to stand up, although I am a little buoyed by the fact that Trump accepted Mattis's clear rejection of torture--perhaps he will learn and listen. Sadly, though I fear this is an early exception and I predict that we will see revolving doors in many of the most senior positions. I don't think that Mattis, etc. are likely to take kindly to being overruled or excluded from major decisions (e.g. General Kelly) too often.

It is a Callous [Group]

I think of callous as more like arrogance. I don't think that Trump is unsympathetic, only that he is so sure of his own correctness that he brooks little argument and seeks little input. Were there more humility in Trump (and to a lesser extent, his entourage) I think he would seem much less threatening, he would get more latitude in his plans, and we would be willing to forgive more of what he is doing/has done (he also might not do it!). 

You may not believe this is true, but I see a lot of similarities between Trump and his predecessor. They both came in believing they had a mandate, both embarked of very aggressive policy changes/course corrections, both dispatched a record-breaking number of executive actions (Obama:18, Trump 20) in their first 10 days in office, both had oppositions who felt the incoming plans were anathema to the very fabric of the republic.

The biggest difference that I see is that Obama spoke in moderated, measured tones, carefully calibrated to an intended mood--is there any surprise his code name was "the Professor"? Trump, by contrast has a very limited range, bounded by anger, bombast, fear, and sarcasm. Though I strongly objected to nearly all of Obama's policies, I did not feel the dread that I think I see in folks around me. They're just ideas, but even bad ideas can be digestible if they are presented in a way that suits the audience.

I keep hoping that Trump will learn some humility, some moderation, and very, very soon, but I'm not optimistic. I think that this is his greatest curse, because it sets up:

[It is a ...] Bumbling Group

When acting out of anger/arrogance/bombast/sarcasm, there really isn't room for second-guessing yourself, let alone getting buy-in from your advisers. Even for ideas that might be defensible (e.g. the moratorium on immigration) when you're going that fast you cause huge waves.  General Kelly and the Dept of Homeland Security couldn't execute the plan well because Trump didn't involve them. Furthermore, no one understood the scope and impact of the decision because of its speed and force, resulting in all kinds of problems and protests. Maybe it is a good idea (I personally think not), and maybe it's a terrible idea but it was clearly executed poorly--and that leads to lots of fear and uncertainty.

There are the things he's done that I believe are bad policy decisions, but also recognize that I might be wrong (e.g. TPP, immigration moratorium, etc.), and there the things that I can't even believe that the media is letting Trump bait them on (e.g. crowd size--who cares!? Don't let him even talk about it). But there are other things that I think are dangerous and could lead to much more suffering, both in the US and out (e.g. the wall with Mexico, ambivalence re: NATO...).

I also have to admit that there are some things that, at first look, made my eyes pop, but in further consideration made me think that questioning the status quo is not always bad, e.g. talking to Taiwan. 

The fact that these actions are coming as though shot from a firehose seriously undermines his credibility. At the same time, I learned today that when he imposed the new sanctions on Iran, he did a good job involving the other signatories to the treaty. A sign of growth? Let us hope so.

[It is a ...] group that demands ... personal loyalty

It is clear from how he ran his business that he is very keen on keeping things close to the chest: his closest advisers are his family. I really wonder about Kushner, Conway and Bannon, who seem to either be insane, or craven. Sadly, this is a man who has huge (yuge?) trust (i.e. fear) issues, and is willing to surround himself with the people who don't challenge him too much.

I have been agog by Conway's blithe dismissals of meaningful objections, questions or concerns. I think of Breitbart news as the political equivalent of the National Enquirer, and Bannon's leadership of that group as brilliantly tactical, if transactional and short-term. 

My Response

While it is tempting to resist, protest, etc. I think those actions only fuel his bad behavior. When he feels threatened, he doubles-down on the things he knows, i.e. the people who elected him despite his many, many sins. Instead, I think we need to do a better job engaging with him--distasteful, disgusting and stomach-churning as it might feel. I see a 70-year-old teenager in the White House, one who has learned who his friends are: the angry, scared, unemployed people who feel betrayed by the people who don't listen to Trump.

If we're honest, we (the progressives, the free-traders, the  intellectuals) have never taken him seriously. He has been a punchline from day 1. Even when reporting on him, it wasn't because we thought him a good man, a good candidate. No, the Trump reporting was more about trying to be the first one to call his flame out, and to document the massive, 37-car pileup that his campaign should have been. 

Trump may never trust the progressives or free-traders enough to listen to them as anything more than adversaries, but continuing to treat him as a dangerous demagogue only confirms what he already knows--that he alone is right and the world is out to get him and America. 

My question is, how do we engage productively, without causing more carnage?